Promoting bicycling vs. promoting transportation demand management

Steve calls our attention to this article in today's Examiner, "D.C. Council looks to increase parking spaces for bikes." From the article:

The D.C. Council next week is expected to adopt legislation that could dramatically increase the number of parking spaces for bicyclists, a bill praised by the cycling community but criticized by property owners as oppressive overkill. The measure mandates that all apartment buildings with more than eight units provide one bicycle parking space for every four residential units, demands that commercial landlords deliver enough bicycle parking to match at least 10 percent of the number of available automobile spaces, and requires the installation of bicycle racks at the Wilson Building for no less than 16 riders. Introduced by Ward 6 Council Member Tommy Wells, the legislation won preliminary council approval in July.

I think the legislation is fine, but ... the thing that bugs me about this, which was discussed in my transportation and land use paper is:

1. The City of Washington should have a master transportation demand management and strategy;

2. rather than trying to legislate this in bits and pieces;

3. it's one more justification of my point that the DC Comprehensive Plan wasn't ready to be approved last December and that the Transportation Element was especially weak, given that TDM was not mandated. Not to mention the fact that parking and curbside management issues were barely discussed.
------
The Examiner piece highlights the differences in opinion about the value of this. In response to a point by Henry that the Netherlands doesn't have specific requirements to accommodate bicyclists, I responded:

The thing about TDM is that it requires "equality of planning" across modes. Maybe in the Netherlands you don't have zoning requirements to accommodate bicyclists. But in the U.S. we have zoning requirements to accommodate automobiles, for the most part at the exclusion of other modes. Only the most enlightened jurisdictions have requirements across multiple modes. That is what this specific legislation is about.
------

Of course, having hard requirements to shift mode use from cars, and a reduction in single occupancy vehicle trips is the way to move policy and practice forward. DC didn't do that with the Comprehensive Plan, so things continue to move forward in a piecemeal, fits and starts, inefficient manner.